Rough justice

In criticising the current process, the chairman of the Association of Optometrists, Donald Cameron, quite rightly complains that the current GOC procedures only allow for one charge and that the systems need to be changed. This is true, but one wonders where Mr Cameron and the AOP have been for the past year as the GOC itself has proposed, after consultation with the AOP among others, far-reaching changes to the disciplinary system to allow a much broader process. Hopefully, the Government will enact them speedily. Mr Cameron also questions the process by which matters are brought before the disciplinary committee, insinuating that unnecessary cases are sent for trial. As chairman of the profession's protective organisation this is his responsibility, but equally he must recognise the responsibility of the GOC towards the public. Hopefully, the investigating committee will never reflect the Crown Prosecution Service in its unwillingness to prosecute, but inevitably, the process will mean that some defendants are found not guilty. The test is an audit of the outcome over a period of time. It is difficult to comment on the decisions of the disciplinary committee without either having been present for the whole hearing or having read the transcript. However, the decision to find an optometrist guilty of serious professional misconduct for missing a tumour and then to impose no penalty is curious in the extreme. It is well established that a single error of judgement can constitute serious professional misjudgement, but one imagines that such a case would have to be so serious and the evidence so convincing that gross negligence was involved as to warrant a penalty following a verdict of guilty. The reported facts of this particular case suggest some considerable doubt about the verdict.